2022 Ottawa Municipal Election

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

There are some examples of missing middle housing being added to older neighbourhoods throughout the city. I live in one of them. As far as I can see however, the costs of this housing is insane (e.g. high 900k range to buy, $2800 for a one bedroom to rent, $3200 for a two bedroom to rent, etc...). Prices like this will send 99% of the population to suburban Ottawa.

Originally Posted by phil235

That's part of it, but I'd also include 3-4 storey walk-up apartments in established neighbourhoods. There's lots of demand for those.

The cost of land makes anything affordable difficult to develop. Some of this is because land is valued assuming much higher density and development charges and barriers. If you expand Ford's bill the next step and you could put 3-4 story walk ups anywhere you wanted perhaps they could come down in price. Residents would fight that tooth and nail but I bet lots of people would live in one near a good school in Nepean or Beacon Hill.

[rocketphish]

New Ottawa city council members prepare to take the reins in 2 weeks
Eleven city councillors are taking part in orientation and hurrying to hire staff

Kate Porter · CBC News
Posted: Oct 31, 2022 4:39 PM ET | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

New council members, elected one week ago, are spending a lot of time around Ottawa City Hall as they prepare to take over on Nov. 15.

They'll be sworn in earlier than councils of the past, after a change in legislation shortened the transition period. That leaves Ottawa's new mayor and 11 new councillors little time to hire staff, take part in training sessions, and get to know one another.

"It's a short turnaround," said mayor-elect Mark Sutcliffe at a media photo opportunity with Jim Watson on Monday morning in the mayor's office. "I was joking about how the president of the United States gets two and a half months, and we get two and half weeks."

Watson has been holding transition meetings with his successor to discuss how the mayor's office is structured and to lay out the big issues facing the city.

"He will be 'His Worship' and I will be 'His Wash-up', in the past tense," Watson quipped. "I really look forward to this period of renewal at the City of Ottawa. I look forward to Mark's leadership."

Sutcliffe said he has been talking one-on-one with the two dozen members of the new city council. He has also been working to assemble his own team of top staff "to hit the ground running" when he assumes Watson's office.

Just down the hall in the heritage wing of city hall, city staff are holding a half-dozen training sessions for the 11 new city councillors.

Monday's was focused on their office budgets, what expenses are allowed, how to hire and manage employees, and where to find IT support. Other orientiation sessions cover municipal laws and committee procedure, planning and transportation policy, and media relations.

Laine Johnson, councillor-elect for College ward, said she is well-versed in municipal integrity laws and governance, but will experience a learning curve when it comes to leading an office and managing staff.

Doing so "by the book" is especially important in her ward, Johnson said. She replaces Rick Chiarelli, who was found to have behaved inappropriately toward job applicants and office assistants.

"I know I need to get that right," said Johnson.

In addition to learning what's involved in the job, the councillors-elect are getting to know one another and will attend a social gathering with all members of council.

Stéphanie Plante, councillor-elect for Rideau-Vanier ward, said she had brunch this past weekend with two new councillors to get to know them, and found they shared priorities including housing, transit and climate change.

Another incoming councillor, Sean Devine in Knoxdale Merivale ward, said it helps that 11 new councillors and the mayor are all new this term.

"I can already see friendships happening, relationships building. So I think in that way we're already off on a good start," said Devine.

The outgoing city council still has a few final pieces of business ahead, including a final council meeting on Nov. 9.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...2022-1.6635575

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That is only half true. As some said previously. If in 15 years we are going to rip up a whole street and build a bike lane it is certainly not true that borrowing now to build it on it's own is revenue neutral. At all. Some people suggested some of the more ad hoc lanes could be done now. Interest and maintenance still an issue and I am skeptical but it is at least possible. Most of it is debt and calling it green bonds so some ethical funds give you a .001% discount on interest doesn't change the fact in 20 years we will still be paying these bonds will need to repair all those bike lanes add new lanes and fund any other priorities.

As the election shows there is no interest from suburban voters to pay for such infrastructure which is why the elaborate plan was designed to hide the cost so I can't fault the campaign for the idea but let's not pretend it's some magic way to get infrastructure for free. Especially as we'd be borrowing at elevated rates where the interest is no longer free.

Sutcliffe was banking on voters being dumb enough to think that you need to “rip up a whole street” to add cycling infrastructure, which is categorically untrue in most cases. Looks like it worked!

Funny how the urban wards are just expected to continuously fund countless suburban road widenings, infrastructure, and services. Yet it’s outrageous for the suburbs to even help fund basic infrastructure in the urban core. Amalgamation has completely failed. It has evolved into the revenue generating urban wards financing the economically disastrous car dependent suburban wards.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Amalgamation has completely failed. It has evolved into the revenue generating urban wards financing the economically disastrous car dependent suburban wards.

It's pretty clear to me that a borough system would serve Ottawa well.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

People think taxes in the City are higher, but someone in Osgoode is likely paying 0.924%-1.01% tax rate (depending on if they get commuter transit/full time fire fighters), while Russell is 1.12% and North Dundas is 1.16%

Everyone, in every municipality, in every province and most territories in Canada, thinks they pay the highest municipal taxes.

At least some of them must be wrong.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

If the core/inner greenbelt wants more electoral power, they actually have to let people live there.

The core is "letting" lots of new people live there through infill and redevelopment.

The outer suburbs are "letting" lots of new people live there through sprawl.

The inner suburbs, on the other hand...

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

It's pretty clear to me that a borough system would serve Ottawa well.

Seconded.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Is the missing middle because we can't add them or because the demand isn't there? What would a missing middle unit be? Townhouses in inner suburbs?

Somewhat demand, although there's nothing being built as high-density car-centric sprawl in Stittsville that couldn't be also be built as redevelopment in the older suburbs.

Somewhat NIMBYism and cultural factors.

Somewhat possibly the most change-averse group of property developers in the country who can't seem to imagine a world that exists between high-rises downtown or sprawl on the fringes. It's gotten a little better in maybe the past ten years or so, but the builders, architects, developers need to step up their game.

"Missing middle" in the literal middle could be any number of different housing forms, as long as they add to the total number of units and their diversity. A lot of the redevelopment we'd see in, say Alta Vista in the early 2000s, was merely taking a small single-family home from the 60s and building onto (or replacing it) so as to make a larger, but still single-family, home.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

There are some examples of missing middle housing being added to older neighbourhoods throughout the city. I live in one of them. As far as I can see however, the costs of this housing is insane (e.g. high 900k range to buy, $2800 for a one bedroom to rent, $3200 for a two bedroom to rent, etc...). Prices like this will send 99% of the population to suburban Ottawa.

It will especially drive people to suburban Ottawa when you're not allowed to build anything anywhere else (other than in the core and oldest, pre-war neighbourhoods.)

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

People think taxes in the City are higher, but someone in Osgoode is likely paying 0.924%-1.01% tax rate (depending on if they get commuter transit/full time fire fighters), while Russell is 1.12% and North Dundas is 1.16%

That might be the most useless statistic. It costs WAY more to service a home in Osgoode than in Hintonburg. The tax payer in the suburbs and beyond should be paying 2-3x as much property tax as someone in the urban area, minimum. The suburbs and rural areas are a drain on municipal resources and are rotting the city from the inside out.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

There are some examples of missing middle housing being added to older neighbourhoods throughout the city. I live in one of them. As far as I can see however, the costs of this housing is insane (e.g. high 900k range to buy, $2800 for a one bedroom to rent, $3200 for a two bedroom to rent, etc...). Prices like this will send 99% of the population to suburban Ottawa.

That’s because we subsidize suburban greenfield developments. If the suburbs had to pay their own way, suburban housing would better reflect the true costs. Instead the inner city pays the bills while being gutted by our “amalgamated” local government.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

That might be the most useless statistic. It costs WAY more to service a home in Osgoode than in Hintonburg. The tax payer in the suburbs and beyond should be paying 2-3x as much property tax as someone in the urban area, minimum. The suburbs and rural areas are a drain on municipal resources and are rotting the city from the inside out.

That is my point, the rural areas in Ottawa have lower taxes due to the subsidy from commercial and dense urban development in the core. If they wanted to de-amalgmate and be a separate Township, taxes would go up significantly.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

That’s because we subsidize suburban greenfield developments. If the suburbs had to pay their own way, suburban housing would better reflect the true costs. Instead the inner city pays the bills while being gutted by our “amalgamated” local government.

I'm aware of some the downfalls of amalgamation but not the political mechanisms (municipally) we have to better balance the situation. Road tolls between the outer/inner greenbelt? Zoned transit fares? I realize there is zero political appetite to do this stuff but I'm curious what can be done.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

Sutcliffe was banking on voters being dumb enough to think that you need to “rip up a whole street” to add cycling infrastructure, which is categorically untrue in most cases. Looks like it worked!

Funny how the urban wards are just expected to continuously fund countless suburban road widenings, infrastructure, and services. Yet it’s outrageous for the suburbs to even help fund basic infrastructure in the urban core. Amalgamation has completely failed. It has evolved into the revenue generating urban wards financing the economically disastrous car dependent suburban wards.

At the time amalgamation, both Nepean and Gloucester finances were much better than Ottawa. In fact, surpluses were used to pay Ottawa urban debt, which caused resentment amongst former Nepean and Gloucester residents.

If there has been a role reversal as you suggest, then it is because of Ottawa mismanagement of Nepean's and Gloucester's legacy. Or, perhaps the cost of maintaining urban infrastructure is actually much higher than you think and your opinion of 'disastrous car dependent suburban wards' is not based on fact.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

That is my point, the rural areas in Ottawa have lower taxes due to the subsidy from commercial and dense urban development in the core. If they wanted to de-amalgmate and be a separate Township, taxes would go up significantly.

Exactly. I agree with you.

[GeoNerd]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At the time amalgamation, both Nepean and Gloucester finances were much better than Ottawa. In fact, surpluses were used to pay Ottawa urban debt, which caused resentment amongst former Nepean and Gloucester residents.

If there has been a role reversal as you suggest, then it is because of Ottawa mismanagement of Nepean's and Gloucester's legacy. Or, perhaps the cost of maintaining urban infrastructure is actually much higher than you think and your opinion of 'disastrous car dependent suburban wards' is not based on fact.

Well I could give you the long winded explanation on how city financials and development revenues work. But I'll just remind you that there is very little of actual worth in Nepean and Gloucester. While they may have been debt free, their history of being cheap/prudent by not building anything isn't something to be celebrated. Ottawa propers leaders chose to spend money and borrow in order to build an actual functioning city. If given the chance I'm sure most urban residents would chose to ditch the suburban freeloaders and return to a separate city.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At the time amalgamation, both Nepean and Gloucester finances were much better than Ottawa. In fact, surpluses were used to pay Ottawa urban debt, which caused resentment amongst former Nepean and Gloucester residents.

If there has been a role reversal as you suggest, then it is because of Ottawa mismanagement of Nepean's and Gloucester's legacy. Or, perhaps the cost of maintaining urban infrastructure is actually much higher than you think and your opinion of 'disastrous car dependent suburban wards' is not based on fact.

Do you really think it’s a result of good management that lead relatively homogenous middle class suburbs to have better finances than the central cities that they were amalgamated with? It seems unlikely that Mississauga and Mel Lastman in North York and basically every other suburb built out in that era was better managed as well.

A much more likely explanation would be a combination of factors such as relatively new infrastructure that hadn’t reached the costlier stages of its life cycle, the concentration of lower income residents and expensive social services in the central city and a tax system based on home values and not the actual costs to service those houses.

I really don’t think there is any serious debate that low density SFH areas are much more costly over the long run. The City of Ottawa itself has done multiple studies that demonstrate the extent of the subsidy.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

At the time amalgamation, both Nepean and Gloucester finances were much better than Ottawa. In fact, surpluses were used to pay Ottawa urban debt, which caused resentment amongst former Nepean and Gloucester residents.

If there has been a role reversal as you suggest, then it is because of Ottawa mismanagement of Nepean's and Gloucester's legacy. Or, perhaps the cost of maintaining urban infrastructure is actually much higher than you think and your opinion of 'disastrous car dependent suburban wards' is not based on fact.

Very little of this is spendthrift downtown or suburbs subsidizes dense downtown housing. It's the downloading of services. The amalgamated city has to pay for daycare and social services. These are naturally more expensive in poorer neighborhoods and as such should be a provincial responsibility. For this reason they needed amalgamation in order to avoid flight to the suburbs as the old city would have had to raise taxes to pay for these new responsibilities.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Do you really think it’s a result of good management that lead relatively homogenous middle class suburbs to have better finances than the central cities that they were amalgamated with? It seems unlikely that Mississauga and Mel Lastman in North York and basically every other suburb built out in that era was better managed as well.

A much more likely explanation would be a combination of factors such as relatively new infrastructure that hadn’t reached the costlier stages of its life cycle, the concentration of lower income residents and expensive social services in the central city and a tax system based on home values and not the actual costs to service those houses.

I really don’t think there is any serious debate that low density SFH areas are much more costly over the long run. The City of Ottawa itself has done multiple studies that demonstrate the extent of the subsidy.

You can literally see this in Mississauga now. They are running out of land to develop. Infrastructure is finally starting to age. Alongside the residents themselves. And with that, they're losing people and the Ponzi scheme is slowly falling apart with skyrocketing taxes.

There may have been an argument to merge the areas in the greenbelt into a single city. But adding in places like Greely was just madness. Would have made more sense to merge larger suburban municipalities. So Stittsville, Kanata and Barrhaven. Orleans and Rockland. Etc.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by GeoNerd

While they may have been debt free, their history of being cheap/prudent by not building anything isn't something to be celebrated.

And, in the day, the suburban residents benefitted greatly from the implicit transfers within the RMOC's budget.